Intel Core i7-11700T vs Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent pattern across all six Cinebench comparisons: the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 wins every single benchmark, though the margins are surprisingly narrow given the architectural gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1395 against the Core i7-11700T's 1304, a 7% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same shape: 196 versus 184, a 6.5% lead for the older server chip.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon extends its multi-core lead to 5814 over 5436, again a 7% delta. The single-core R20 numbers show 820 versus 767, a 6.9% edge. In Cinebench R23, the most recent test in the database, the Xeon posts 13843 multi-core versus 12945 for the i7-11700T, which works out to 6.9% ahead. The single-core R23 result is 1954 versus 1827, another 7% win for the Xeon.

What stands out here is the consistency. Every delta falls between 6.5% and 7%, with no outlier or regression. The Xeon's advantage is real but modest, not the kind of blowout one might expect from a 16-core, 32-thread part versus an 8-core, 16-thread part. The wins total 6 for the Xeon and 0 for the Core i7, but the i7-11700T is clearly closer than the core count disparity suggests.

The average benchmark score reinforces this: the Xeon sits at 4004 overall, while the i7-11700T records 3864. That is a 3.6% gap in the aggregate, smaller than the Cinebench deltas because the i7 has additional Geekbench results in its profile. The percentile rankings also reflect near parity: the Xeon lands at the 57th percentile of all CPUs in the database, the i7 at the 56th.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2698B v3 wins everywhere the database has head-to-head data, but the practical interpretation depends on workload. In multi-threaded rendering tasks like Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon's 16 cores and 32 threads produce 13843 points, which is 898 points ahead of the i7's 12945. That is enough to matter for prolonged renders or batch processing, though the percentage gap remains under 7%.

For single-threaded workloads, the Xeon also leads, but the margin is thinner in absolute terms. The R23 single-core difference is 127 points (1954 versus 1827). The i7-11700T has a higher boost clock at 4.60 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, yet it still trails in every single-core test. This suggests the Xeon's older Haswell architecture delivers better instructions per clock in these specific Cinebench workloads, or the i7's 35 W TDP limits sustained single-core boost behavior.

The i7-11700T does have one clear advantage in the database: integrated graphics. The UHD Graphics 750 is present on the Core i7, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. This makes the i7 a viable option for systems without a discrete GPU, such as basic desktops or troubleshooting setups. The Xeon requires an external graphics card, which is expected for its server/workstation market segment.

For memory bandwidth, the Xeon's quad-channel DDR4 support gives it a theoretical 68.3 GB/s, versus 51.2 GB/s for the i7's dual-channel setup. This matters for memory-bound server workloads, though no direct benchmark in the database measures this effect. The i7 counters with PCIe Gen 4 support (20 lanes) versus the Xeon's PCIe Gen 3 (40 lanes), which benefits modern GPUs and NVMe drives despite the lower lane count.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E5-2698B v3 is built on Intel's Haswell-EP architecture, a 22 nm process with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. It features 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 40 MB L3 cache. This is a server/workstation part on the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, supporting quad-channel DDR4 memory and ECC.

The Core i7-11700T uses Rocket Lake, a 14 nm architecture with an 8-core, 16-thread configuration. Its die size is 276 mm², and the transistor count is not listed in the database. Clocks run at 1.40 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost, which is a much wider frequency range than the Xeon. The cache setup is 80 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. This is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1200, supporting dual-channel DDR4 with no ECC capability.

The process node difference is notable: 22 nm versus 14 nm. While the i7 is on a smaller lithography, the Xeon compensates with a much larger L3 cache (40 MB versus 16 MB) and double the cores. The i7's per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger, which helps with single-thread efficiency. The Xeon's memory bandwidth advantage (68.3 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s) comes from its quad-channel controller, while the i7's dual-channel setup is typical for desktop parts.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The Xeon offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, ideal for multi-GPU or high-density storage servers. The i7 provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which doubles the per-lane bandwidth but halves the count. For most desktop users, 20 Gen 4 lanes cover a single GPU and one or two NVMe drives without issue. The i7 also includes UHD Graphics 750, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

The production status for both is end-of-life, so neither is a current purchase recommendation for new builds. The i7 has a recorded release date of 2021-03-15, while the Xeon's release date is not listed in the database. The Xeon's part number is SR21T, and the i7's is SRKNT.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core i7-11700T has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon has exactly double the core and thread count.

Q: Why does the Xeon win single-core benchmarks despite a lower boost clock?

A: The Xeon's boost clock is 3.40 GHz versus 4.60 GHz for the i7-11700T, yet the Xeon still wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 1954 points versus 1827. The recorded data shows a 7% advantage, which indicates the Haswell architecture's per-clock efficiency in these tests outweighs the raw frequency gap.

Q: Does the Core i7-11700T support ECC memory?

A: No. The database lists ECC memory support as false for the i7-11700T. The Xeon E5-2698B v3 supports ECC memory, which is expected for its server/workstation market segment.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these CPUs?

A: The Xeon E5-2698B v3 has a TDP of 135 W, while the Core i7-11700T has a TDP of 35 W. The i7 is a low-power desktop part, and the Xeon is a standard server processor.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i7-11700T has integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 750. The Xeon E5-2698B v3 has no integrated graphics listed, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5-2698B v3 has an average benchmark score of 4004, and the i7-11700T has 3864. The Xeon sits at the 57th percentile of all CPUs, while the i7 sits at the 56th percentile, indicating near-identical overall performance in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 | Intel Core i7-11700T |

|----------------|------------------------|----------------------|

| Cores | 16 | 8 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 1.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 135 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Rocket Lake |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 276 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 40 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 68.3 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 40 Lanes | Gen 4, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 750 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $323 |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow victory for the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks by margins between 6.5% and 7%, and its average score of 4004 tops the i7-11700T's 3864. For users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput, the Xeon's 16 cores and 32 threads deliver 13843 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 898 points ahead of the i7's 12945. The Xeon also brings ECC memory support, quad-channel bandwidth at 68.3 GB/s, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, making it the better choice for servers, workstations, or any environment where reliability and memory bandwidth matter.

The Core i7-11700T is not without merit, however. Its 35 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient, and its 4.60 GHz boost clock is the highest in this comparison. The integrated UHD Graphics 750 removes the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems, and PCIe Gen 4 support allows for faster storage and graphics connectivity than the Xeon's Gen 3 interface. The i7's 276 mm² die on 14 nm also gives it newer process technology, though the transistor count is not listed for direct comparison.

Choosing between these two comes down to platform priorities. If the build demands ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, and maximum core count, the Xeon E5-2698B v3 is the correct pick despite its older architecture. If the goal is a low-power desktop with integrated graphics and modern PCIe Gen 4, the i7-11700T offers comparable performance in the database's benchmarks with far less power draw. The percentile ranking difference is just one point (57 versus 56), so neither CPU has a meaningful overall performance edge. The Xeon's 57th percentile and the i7's 56th percentile place them in the same tier, with the Xeon's advantages concentrated in multi-threaded and memory-heavy workloads.

For a system that must run headless in a rack or handle sustained parallel workloads, the Xeon is the data-backed choice. For a compact desktop that needs graphics output and low heat, the i7-11700T is the sensible pick. Both are end-of-life parts, so availability and platform fit will likely decide the final answer more than raw benchmark scores. The recorded data shows a 6.9% to 7% delta in the Xeon's favor across Cinebench, which is consistent enough to trust, but not large enough to dismiss the i7's other advantages.